Pick6;1547782 wrote:I have yet to take the CC course (so I do not know all that they go over, and could be off base), but I am very familiar with how to use and shoot a gun. I can see the importance of classroom time. Knowing the laws would be more important to me (to avoid potential legal trouble) than range time shooting the gun. I understand not everybody is like this, but it's just another way to look at it.

justincredible;1547786 wrote:I don't disagree with you. But 10 hours? I could see it being a problem if they were doing 2 hours in the classroom and 2 hours on the range and calling it a day.

Me?;1547794 wrote:I've put well over 100,000 rounds down range in the last 2 or 3 years and just took my concealed class last year. I literally required no instruction. I could have aced the test as soon as I walked in. I was actually a better shooter than my instructor by a considerable margin. But like I said, even I benefited from some of the stuff we did on the range. I understand the state standards are the law, but I'd much rather instructors put out safe and competent shooters than follow the law word for word.

Me?;1547792 wrote:The law part of it doesn't even take very long, it's not like you're studying the tax code. There really isn't that much law to go over. They want 10 hours focused mostly on safe handling. Which is ridiculous. You can go over safe handling in a class of 10 in about an hour, MAYBE two. But the real application of it and the real knowledge is picked up at the range. Since we spent more time at the range, we were able to do some shooting drills that I doubt hardly any concealed instructor ever puts their students through and it was a huge help for most of the class. Even I benefited from some of the things we had time to do on the range. Range time is so valuable. It's ACTUAL practice instead of just talking about the same 3 or 4 things over and over again for hours. I'd rather the people who are carrying around me have the range him with a real instructor rather than by themselves. He was able to correct so many problems that most of the people in my class had and they were much better shooters for it.

Me?;1547794 wrote:I've put well over 100,000 rounds down range in the last 2 or 3 years and just took my concealed class last year. I literally required no instruction. I could have aced the test as soon as I walked in. I was actually a better shooter than my instructor by a considerable margin. But like I said, even I benefited from some of the stuff we did on the range. I understand the state standards are the law, but I'd much rather instructors put out safe and competent shooters than follow the law word for word.

Me?;1547773 wrote:If you agree with the way the state designates it, then you're an idiot. I don't mean to be offensive, but it's CLEAR to anyone with a brain and certainly any gun enthusiast that the range time is literally a million times more valuable than the classroom time. 10 hours in the classroom for a concealed permit is asinine. There isn't even enough information to take up the whole 10 hours. We still covered everything that was supposed to be covered.

I'll put my instructor and the way he did it up against ANY instructor that goes by the book and I guarantee the people coming out of the class I took are far more capable with a gun at the end of it. I have another friend who is an instructor and sat in on his class one day when my sister took it. He did it by the book. About half the class was nowhere near what I would call ready to carry a gun in public after 2 hours on the range. The classroom time literally did almost nothing for anyone except bore them to death.

Glory Days;1548082 wrote:its not the state's job to teach you HOW to shoot though. its their job to teach you when you can pull the trigger and what to expect and all that other stuff.

Me?;1548000 wrote:If I'm an idiot then so is my NRA licensed, former special ops instructor.

Me?;1548152 wrote:Alright, LJ, answer my question then...

Time reading a book and watching videos about safe firearm handling is a more productive way of teaching and learning competent safe handling and operation than range time is, huh?


The truth is, the state can't teach you what to expect, but the more time you spend shooting your gun and getting comfortable with it, the better you'll be with it in any situation. The laws take very little time to go over. Isn't the most important part of this entire thing SAFE and COMPETENT shooting? Or is it just to send a bunch of people who know the law really well out into the world with guns they don't know how to shoot properly? The state is also currently passing legislation that takes the required time from 12 hours to 4 hours. But please, tell me more about how reading a book makes you a better shooter than actually shooting. Because, you know, the police and military are clearly wasting their time and resources when they're on the practice range--they could just read how to do it in a book and watch a few NRA videos.

WebFire;1548156 wrote:Wrong. The course is not a shooting proficiency course. There are other courses for that. To your point, one should never just rely on the little range training they get with a CHL course.

LJ;1548161 wrote:Bingo. The course is supposed to be about the laws and outcomes. Situations to avoid, how to handle yourself in situations. Its not a handgun proficiency training course.

Me?;1548164 wrote:Agreed. But some people are making really bad mistakes when they're shooting and they continually practice their bad habits when they're by themselves. It's not a benefit for someone who is going to be CARRYING a gun in public to have a certified NRA instructor observe them and help them correct their mistakes?

I understand it isn't a shooting proficiency course, the point is, all the stuff you have to do in the classroom wouldn't take 10 hours to teach to a 8 year old.

Me?;1548188 wrote:I agree with that as well, but my point remains, you could teach all of it in far less than 10 hours. The people who were in my class and knew nothing going in would tell you it was redundant. I think if we're going to assume someone has zero experience, it's even more of a reason to put them on the range.

Regardless, I'll defend my instructor. He's fantastic. Like I said, he's former special operator, the dude knows what he's doing. I certainly won't accept being called an idiot by people who seem to think that range time isn't that important. I'm likely a better shooter than anyone here (maybe not), and it isn't because I have some special ability that other people don't, it's because I've spent far more time on the range than the vast majority of people. It's the most important part of the entire process and it's not even close. Learning how to properly handle and operate your firearm and correcting bad habits is crucial. The "it's not a shooting proficiency test" arguments are bogus. Just because you spend extra time on the range doesn't mean you're working on tighter groupings. For many in my class, it was working on them hitting the target at all. In the beginning, 8 of the 10 in our class couldn't put 5 rounds on a paper plate from 10 yards. At the end, everyone could. They all learned MUCH more on the range than they did in the classroom.

Here is the law. Anyone who thinks they need 10 hours to cover that, I can suggest some other classes I think you ought to take.